Davide, check the weights on the product page. They are based on averages from real production. And the difference is not just a fiber layer change, the whole layup is different, hence the 12-15% difference (on EVOs, haven't checked other boards).

Yep, but you see, Ola, this is getting much closer to marketing and not substance. To get a 10-15% weight difference you have to build the board differently, not just change from glass to carbon, and then all our discussions are moot ... we are comparing boards that are different NOT because of such a simple thing as carbon vs glass layers ..

Just for reference: If a board of the size of my Acid 74 2007 switched 4 layers (sandwich total) of 6.0z S-glass to 4.5oz Carbon the weight gain would be about 150-180 grams. However you probably would not want to go for such a light carbon to laminate the bottom of the board ... so there is goes 1/4 to 1/2 of your weight gain ...

Thanks Svein for weighing in with your thoughts here. Outside of the performance merits of different technologies, it's refreshing to see that Starboard is bringing in added quality control functions to better ensure that physical shape specification and tolerances are being maintained. In you master development and design studies, I'm presuming that the boards are being built custom in your in-house manufacturing facility. Once a design has been defined and frozen for production, I was wondering whether your team continues with actual testing contrasting the master with the production models over the year to verify that performance targets are being met by the folks at Cobra.

I don't get it, Davide? Are you suggesting that the "honest" way to do it is to only change glass for carbon? And that if you do other changes to the construction it would be in some way dishonest (=only marketing)?

To me that would be very foolish of the constructors and I think the sound way to do it is to consider the construction as a whole. Glass or carbon needs to be optimized in different ways, and as you know even different types of carbon will work very differently in the board and require the rest of the construction to be different to. In fact, the smaller "wave type" woodcarbon boards use a different carbon and hence a different construction overall than the bigger boards.

And at least from my side, the discussion have been about the different constructions and how they are to sail relative each other. Or maybe about how a given weight decrease affects the feel on the water. But not about if changing a given layer in a given board from glass to carbon will mean anything.

And again, the customer can choose if he wishes to pay more for the lighter construction. And at least from my point of view, Starboard has not pushed the woodcarbon in marketing in an kind of outrageous way either. It's an option that is now offered for those who want it.

I don't get it, Davide? Are you suggesting that the "honest" way to do it is to only change glass for carbon? And that if you do other changes to the construction it would be in some way dishonest (=only marketing)?

Nothing to get, really, you are just putting words in my mouth and playing a bit of the outraged card while I only trying to have a discussion based on some facts.

What I am saying is that if you ONLY change from glass to carbon the weight gain would not be 10-15% (or 20% as you claimed just a few threads above) of the board weight: Not even close to that.

Assuming that there are such large differences in weights, other construction factors are into play And all the already extremely vague discussion about the merits/de-merits of carbon vs glass is completely moot.

PS I cannot really imagine what those 'factors', having to do with "optimization" of different materials, are. Can you give specifics? From Ian Fox reply it would appear that the test with the Isonics only involved switching to carbon fiber.

Davide, you can see the basics of the wood and woodcarbon layups on the "technology page", http://www.star-board.com/2009/pages...technology.php. You can see that a lot of things are different. The WC board is a "wave" model and the W board a "regular", I think, but the basics are there in both. For example, in the woodcarbon boards, wood is used as reinforcement while in the wood boards it's use all over the board. So we are not trying to fool anybody.

And I'm sorry if I was in some way implying I was discussing glass vs carbon. My understanding was that the discussion was about weight (as a function the particular constructions) relative to riding characteristics, but maybe I was unclear somewhere. If we just talk about how the aforementioned aspects of riding (cutbacks etc) are affacted by a simple fiber change I agree its not a big deal.

It good to hear that i should be able to buy exactly the same board as a dream team rider, since that is what i pay for and expect.

What really worries me and not just with Starboard, out of the dozens of boards that i have purchased over the past few years, i have yet to find a board that is -5 or 6% of the average weight. I think i can say for sure that it is always + of the average weight, usually towards or even higher than the max tolerance.

If the weights stated are average weights from actual production, then by the law of averages i should stand a chance of finding a light board, but i never can.

I trust that the new measures you have put in place can help reduce weight variation.

Well unregistered #47, that is the point, for some reason!
My '97 and '99 RRD's were spot on or close to that, actually: a 281 and a 278 slalom boards, both well below 6.0 kg. I don't think it depended from the brand, maybe I was very lucky, or maybe Cobra was working well back then.
The obvious suspect that comes to mind is that boards erring to the "-" side of that tolerance go to team riders, the heavier ones to me and you. All together, they make that nice average weight.
The other possible parameter, which is less obvious and more difficult to check, and that was discreetly and candidly brought in by Svein, is about rocker line (in)consistency. Performance loose from that can probably be far more serious than that resulting from a "+x%" weight. Better not to think about that...

In the end, one could discover things are far worse now than before the "production boards" rule. Nowadays, theorically team riders must ride the same boards we buy in shop. In reality, their boards "could be" selected ones, with good shape consistency and lighter weights. Plus, "it could be" team riders have access to delicate operations such as bottom re-fairing and rail sharpening. Lesser and recreational riders have to settle with what comes from the shops, and those could turn out to have bad shape consistency and heavish weights: the dogs.
This could even be OK, if shapes were always correct and consistent and weight tolerances were tighter! But "it could be" there are some problems here instead. Instead of using the same boards with same performances team riders use, "it could be" we have now the hugest performance gap ever between what top riders have and what we get in shop; and no hope to fill it thanks to a good shaper living near.

For this reason I strongly hope that Starboard, as the market leader and a company guided with inspiration, will make an effort in this direction. We know that even glass, when properly used, can lead to light strong boards. So I'd love to see less sporting of new complex building recipes, which after all aren't complex at all - it's windsurfing boards not space shuttles!, less use of exotic laminates alongside with plenty of filler, and good shape consistency and the assurance of acceptable weights instead. A very simple idea and a first step could be that of stating "maximum accepted weight" instead of "average production weight +/- tolerances".